Are "most" Scientists Idealists, Realists, Phenomenologists Or Nominalists

[nominal9]

Epistemologically speaking.... point being... most "scientists" or
"engineers" are one or the other of the above.... but they don't even
know it or recognize the confines imposed upon their "thinking" by
their "epistemological bent".....
Ignorant of their own first principles or assumptions... blinded (or
blindered in tunnel-vision) by them, more often than not....

[aruzinsky]

In my experience, most authors in peer reviewed electrical engineering
journals on signal processing are publishing results with no
foreseeable practical value in the near future. In other words, they
are publishing pure research disguised as applied research insofar as
"engineering" suggests applied research.

I, myself, have done this here:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?reload=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F29%2F636%2F00017548.pdf%3Farnumber%3D17548&authDecision=-203

[asaye belayneh sibhatu]

 despite replay  don't stop please

.

[Enrique Fynn]

Dear Aruzinsky...

Science not necessary have "foreseeable practical value in the near
future", I know a lot of engineers that are in theoretical field.

I can't read your paper, could you send a copy to 'enriq...@gmail.com'?

Regards;
Fynn.
--
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day"

"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the
poor are hungry, they call me a communist."
_ Dom Helder Camara

2010/12/3 asaye belayneh sibhatu <asu...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>  despite replay  don't stop please
> .
>>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>

[aruzinsky]

I can't because I have no PDFs and, if I did, I wouldn't send it to
you because I don't like you because you are a liar. For example,
your response below is non sequitur because I never implied that

"Science not necessary have "foreseeable practical value in the near

future". ' In another thread, I implied it was inferior science in
some average sense. In fact, I feel slightly guilty that I could not
find a practical advantageous use for my published result. But, at
least, I potentially prevented some other researchers from wasting
their time on getting the same result and that lessened my guilt.

But, I bet that most engineers who publish pure research do not feel
guilty because, unlike me, they define their morality by what is
normal or what is acceptable in their religion and not by what they
believe contributes to the greater good.

On Dec 3, 4:03 am, Enrique Fynn <enriquef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Aruzinsky...
>
> Science not necessary have "foreseeable practical value in the near
> future", I know a lot of engineers that are in theoretical field.
>

> I can't read your paper, could you send a copy to 'enriquef...@gmail.com'?

>
> Regards;
> Fynn.
> --
> "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day"
>
> "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the
> poor are hungry, they call me a communist."
> _ Dom Helder Camara
>

> 2010/12/3 asaye belayneh sibhatu <asun...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >  despite replay  don't stop please
> > .
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Epistemology" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[aruzinsky]

Correction:

For example, your response below is non sequitur because I never
implied that "Science not necessary have "foreseeable practical value

in the near future". ' wasn't true. Quite the opposite, in another

thread, I implied it was inferior science in some average sense.

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[LCC]

I can't speak for other professions, but as a software engineer, I am
a rational empiricist. I design a specification, translate it into an
implementation, compile it with a trusted compiler, observe behavior
on a target machine, using the user interface and possibly debugging
tools. I once spent two weeks on designing an overlay loading
operating system. Of course I had a bug in the 3000 lines of code
which I typed up. After five days of trying diagnostic methods, and
repeatedly reading the code over and over again, I found that the bug
was simply that I had reversed two lines of code performed
sequentially for calling certain functions. Despite repeated efforts
at finding the problem, of my OWN design and implementation, I was
blind to the oversight until I was tearing my hair in frustration and
looked at the code with the eyes of an idiot rather than an expert. If
I had not KNOWN that there was a flaw in the code which occurred only
under certain specific circumstances, then I would have passed it out
as bug free.

The lesson to be learned is that unless you go LOOKING for flaws in a
theory or practical application, your ASSUMPTION that there are no
flaws (based upon insufficient evidence) will blind you to the fact
that flaws exist. Only rigorous testing by persons with various
cultural blind spots will detect the gems of inconsistency which lead
to great leaps forward in theory, and ultra reliable applications.

Lonnie Courtney Clay